SC ties States’ hands in appointing DGPs

Preventing the States from arbitrarily appointing the heads of State police force, the Supreme Court on Tuesday laid down a set of guidelines that would make it customary for the State Government to seek the nod of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) before filling up the crucial post.

Cracking the whip on the States, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud felt States have to scrupulously follow its orders by preparing a list of candidates fit for appointment of Director General of Police(DGP)/ Commissioner of Police, three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent. The States have to select one out of the panel of names suggested by the UPSC, the Bench said, adding that no State shall appoint an acting DGP pending the formal appointment, and make him permanent just towards his superannuation.

While directing all States to strictly comply with its order, the court put in “abeyance” all State laws enacted in violation of this order.

This is the second time that the apex court has tightened screws on the executive to avoid politicisation of police force at the hands of politicians. Earlier, on September 22, 2006 elaborate orders were passed by the SC to reform police force that included selection of police chief in the States/UTs out of a panel of names suggested by the UPSC.

Unfortunately, these reforms were breached by the State Governments. Some of them even passed State legislations to override the apex court’s order. Attorney General KK Venugopal informed the court on Tuesday that five out of 29 States alone sent names to the UPSC. These included Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Rajasthan.

The Bench held, “None of the States shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of DGP on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police as per the decision in Prakash Singh’s case.”

The order came on an application moved by the Centre seeking modification to the apex court’s September 2006 ruling in Prakash Singh vs Union of India. The Centre had problems with the SC order fixing DGP’s minimum tenure of two years irrespective of superannuation. The Centre favoured recommending names of officers having a clear two-year tenure as DGP.

But Prakash Singh’s lawyer Prashant Bhushan objected saying this would create an anomaly as certain meritorious candidates may retire as Inspector General while their juniors will get to supersede them as DGP. The Bench accepted this plea and clarified that while considering on selection of DGP, the UPSC will give due weightage to merit and seniority and such tenure beyond the age of superannuation of the selected officer should be “reasonable” period. The court will consider the matter after two weeks to deal with objections from States, if any.